The exemption of the impatriation premium is subject to compliance with the reference remuneration provided for by law and clarified by administrative doctrine. It is within this framework that the tax judge provides guidance on disputes between taxpayers and the authorities.
THE LAW
If the taxable remuneration after exemption of the impatriation premium “is lower than the remuneration paid for similar functions within the company or, failing that, in similar companies established in France, the difference is added back to the taxpayer’s taxable base” (Article 155 B I‑1, last paragraph of the French Tax Code).
The exemption of the impatriation premium therefore requires compliance with a minimum level of taxation, assessed by comparison with a reference remuneration.
ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE
This comparison is made on the basis of net taxable remuneration determined according to the rules applicable to salaries, “excluding in particular amounts paid or gains realized under employee savings or employee shareholding schemes (I‑A‑2‑a § 90)” (BOI‑RSA‑GEO‑40‑10‑20‑20250811, n° 140).
Are notably excluded amounts paid under collective profit‑sharing schemes, stock‑option gains, and benefits from the allocation of free shares under qualifying plans (n° 90). A technical sheet published on impots.gouv.fr specifies that “non‑qualifying remuneration may give entitlement to the exemption provided that it is taxable in France under the ordinary salary rules.”
Compliance with the reference remuneration may be justified by any means, including the production of an employer certificate (n° 120). The assessment is made for the year of taking up duties, with a pro rata adjustment if necessary (n° 130).
Various relaxations are accepted by the authorities (n° 150):
- “even where similar functions are performed within the company, the ‘reference remuneration’ may be that paid for such functions in similar companies established in France to an employee with comparable professional experience;
- this ‘reference remuneration’ may be equal to the lowest remuneration received by an employee with comparable experience and performing similar functions within the company or a similar company in France, during the year in question or the three preceding years;
- where the impatriation premium is fixed (subject to indexation clauses), the comparison may be made only for the year of arrival. If the condition is met in the year of arrival, and provided the employee’s functions do not change, it is deemed met for the entire impatriation period.”
These relaxations require the impatriate to “produce an employer certificate specifying the method used to determine the reference remuneration,” and the employer must have precise and justified elements (n° 160).
CASE LAW
1/ Assessment of the reference remuneration
The comparison must relate to genuinely similar functions
If a professional football player occupies the position of midfielder, his remuneration must be compared to that of other midfielders: “players occupying defender or striker positions cannot be regarded as performing functions similar to those of midfielders” (CAA Paris, 16 March 2021, no. 19PA00956). Same conclusion for a striker: CAA Marseille, 18 December 2025, no. 24MA02687.
Comparing an impatriate working in a Chinese public bank specializing in foreign trade with a “director/manager in an investment bank” constitutes a “circumstance that makes the comparison proposed by the administration irrelevant due to the difference in functions” (TA Paris, 29 December 2025, no. 2307575).
Notoriety and experience criteria add to the law
These criteria cannot be retained as they “add to the legal text by requiring consideration of characteristics specific to individuals performing the functions” (CAA Paris, 16 March 2021). This confirms the first‑instance judgment where the impatriate argued that “the analogous nature of the functions… does not depend on the individual experience or notoriety of each player” (TA Paris, 6 November 2018, no. 1615500/1‑2).
2/ Supporting evidence
Rejected evidence
- Producing an article from “cadremploi” and two general national salary studies does not justify compliance (TA Cergy‑Pontoise, 5 July 2022, no. 1906595).
- Producing a single payslip of a colleague allegedly performing similar functions “does not establish the relevance of the comparison” (TA Cergy‑Pontoise, 29 May 2024, no. 2007371).
- An employer certificate using conditional wording (“could be paid”), without specifying the year or the functions concerned, is insufficient. Press clippings from L’Équipe with monthly estimates and no information on bonuses are also rejected (TA Nice, 27 June 2024, no. 2103756).
- An impatriate fails to establish compliance where the employer merely attests to “similar remuneration” without demonstrating that taxable remuneration after the 30% exemption is at least equal to that of comparable employees (TA Cergy‑Pontoise, 14 November 2024, no. 2214943).
Accepted evidence
- On appeal, a more precise employer certificate plus anonymized extracts of social declarations of three comparable employees was sufficient. An L’Équipe estimate also showed the impatriate’s remuneration was “significantly higher” (CAA Marseille, 18 December 2025).
- A sufficiently precise employer certificate stating that taxable remuneration “after the 30% exemption is not lower than that received by employees with comparable experience and similar functions” is accepted (TA Paris, 19 December 2025, no. 2326171).
- An employer certificate detailing the actual impatriation bonus and confirming that annual net remuneration “excluding the impatriation premium” is at least equal to that of comparable functions is sufficient (TA Paris, 29 December 2025).
3/ Comparison between the reference remuneration and the impatriate’s remuneration
When an impatriate opts for the 30% lump‑sum evaluation, the exemption “applies to all taxable remuneration, including severance payments under Article 80 duodecies” (CE, 4 October 2023, no. 466714; CAA Paris, 31 January 2025, no. 23PA04242).
The comparison must exclude employee savings and shareholding schemes. Moreover, “the comparison must be made using annual net taxable remuneration, meaning that the average salary invoked by the administration must be adjusted to remove social contributions” (TA Paris, 29 December 2025).
________________
Beyond the legal, administrative and case‑law framework, determining the reference remuneration requires considering:
- remuneration levels for similar functions
- remuneration structure (base salary, variable pay, stock plans, savings schemes, benefits in kind, tax equalization, professional expenses…)
- choice between actual or lump‑sum impatriation bonus
- days worked abroad
- exemption limits and ceilings
- possible exemption from mandatory pension contributions
- exclusion of the impatriation bonus from the employer’s payroll tax base
This requires a global, individualized approach based on the facts of each case.
Further reading